ORDER The petitioner is a Bank and grants loan to farmers and persons associated with it as well as for other agriculture purposes in accordance with the schemes of the Government. The petitioner seeks mandamus directing the State of Bihar to release a sum of Rs.570.00 crores and 79 lakhs due against the State Government under different heads coming since last many years. The Bank was under supersession from 1988 to 2003 and was managed by the Administrator appointed under the relevant Act. The Board of Directors were elected in 2003 and since then it is governed by the Managing Committee/Board of Directors. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that under the directions and schemes of the government, it advanced loan to the farmers and others. Again at the instance of the government the Bank had to waive recovery of loan or to collect the loan at a reduced rate of interest. The Bank provides various incentives for agricultural purposes which involved huge final expenditure which was only marginally repaid by the government. The petitioner states that the Central Government from time to time granted aid to the State Government to liquidate and settle the loan of the Bank. In spite of having received huge grant from the Central Government running in 2000 crores, the State Government did not release the dues, but occasionally paid some crores now and then. Even the Chairman of the NABARD requested the Hon’ble the Chief Minister to settle the dues of the Bank but no pragmatic approach was adopted either to settle or liquidate the dues of the Bank much less repayment of the loan. The petitioner in support of its submission has referred to various documents which are contained in Annexures-9, 10 and 11 series. The petitioner has also referred to the order of this court dated 29.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.16653 of 2010, contained in Annexure-13, wherein this court directed the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order on the request of the Bank to release Rs.300.76 cores as early as possible in any case within three months of the receipt of the fresh request for release of the amount from the Bank along with a copy of that order. It would be apt to quote paragraph 5 of the order dated 29.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.16653 of 2010 as under:– “5. It would be apt to quote paragraph 5 of the order dated 29.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.16653 of 2010 as under:– “5. Having appreciated the aforesaid statement in the supplementary counter affidavit, I direct the Bank to request the State Government to release the amount under Loan Waiver Scheme as early as possible. No sooner the amount under Loan Waiver Scheme or part thereof is released the arrears of salary of petitioner and others similarly situate be released. In this connection the State Government shall be obliged to pass appropriate order on the request of the Bank to release Rs.300.76 cores as early as possible in any case within three months of the receipt of the fresh request for release of the amount from the Bank along with a copy of this order”. 3. The petitioner in its supplementary affidavit has prepared a consolidated head wise claim at one place which is contained in Annexure-17. The petitioner states that on directives of government, it stopped recovery of loan in certain regions and in some regions was asked to recover loan at reduced rate of interest. Learned counsel submits that the State Government owns more than 90% share in the Bank. 4. A counter affidavit and two supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State. The State submits that the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs. 80.76 crores was presented by the Administrator of petitioner Bank on 2.3.1996 and the same was duly scrutinized and was rejected by the then Secretary and as such there is no need for reviewing the same. 5. It is relevant to point out here that even assuming the submission of the petitioner to be correct, the claim of the petitioner does not end in the year 1996. The case of the petitioner is that even after 1996 it advanced loan and granted rebates to meet various government schemes and directives. 6. The respondent State further submits that the figures of claims are mere figment of imagination and without any authoritative basis. They state that in past some money has been paid to the Bank and if the petitioner substantiates its claim, they are willing to consider the claim for payment. Learned State counsel submits that even the NABARD in its letter has expressed dissatisfaction in the manner, the Bank has transacted its business. 7. They state that in past some money has been paid to the Bank and if the petitioner substantiates its claim, they are willing to consider the claim for payment. Learned State counsel submits that even the NABARD in its letter has expressed dissatisfaction in the manner, the Bank has transacted its business. 7. Counsel for the State submits that the Bank has failed even to recover the minimum charges from the respondents. 8. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lstly made an alternative submissions that the matter may be referred to a retired Judge or to an official of the Central Government as the latter squarely shares the burden of State Government by granting aid. 9. Counsel for the State expresses apprehension whether the matter can be referred directly for arbitration in absence of any agreement to the same effect. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties. 11. The case of the petitioner bank is that it advanced loan for agricultural purposes at the instance and assurance of the State Government that it will make the good the loss. At times, the Bank had to waive its recovery fully as well as partially in view of the Government’s policies. In some cases the Bank was obliged to recover the loss at a reduced rate of interest in view of the government policy. The petitioner thus claims that up till now a sum of Rs.570 crores is due to the Government. On the other hand, the State had disputed the claim of the petitioner and had alleged mis-management of funds. Both sides have referred to large number of documents in support of their respective claims. 12. The matter relates to accounting, advancement of loan, waiver of loan, payment of loan etc. The adjudication of these issues involve examination of conflicting claims and documents. It would be difficult for this court in writ jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of facts. However, this court passes the following order:– (i) The petitioner would take steps for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for settling the disputes Or May request the State Government to appoint a Committee consisting of senior officials, one of which must be serving with the Central Government. However, this court passes the following order:– (i) The petitioner would take steps for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for settling the disputes Or May request the State Government to appoint a Committee consisting of senior officials, one of which must be serving with the Central Government. In case such request is made the State Government would constitute such Committee; (ii) The aforesaid direction would not come in the way of the respondents in settling the claim of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.